Affiliation: Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Chungju, Korea.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate changes in activity of daily living before and after provision of electric-powered indoor/outdoor chair (EPIOC), discuss problems of current activities of daily living (ADL) evaluating tools for EPIOC users, and provide preliminary data to develop ADL evaluation tool for EPIOC user.

Methods: A total of 70 users who were prescribed EPIOC and had been using for more than 1 year were recruited in this study. Before and after provision of EPIOC, MBI and FIM scores were measured and a questionnaire consisting of six categories (general socioeconomic states, currently using state, whether EPIOC was helpful for social participation and occupational chances, psychiatric influences, self-reported degrees of independency, and barriers of using EPIOC) was used.

Results: No difference in MBI scores before and after provision of EPIOC was observed. However, the wheelchair ambulation category showed a significant difference. While motor FIM was not significantly different from MBI, FIM score were significantly (p<0.05) higher than MBI. For questions regarding social participation frequency, helpfulness of EPIOC on confidence, refreshing patients' emotions and self-reported degrees of independence, all of them showed positive responses. Especially, EPIOC users' self-reported degree of independency showed favorable results. There was discrepancy in MBI or FIM measured by physicians.

Conclusion: Our study showed that there was a gap between the existing ADL evaluation tool and the ADL level that EPIOC users were actually feeling. Thus, it is necessary to develop an evaluation tool specifically for EPIOC.

Figure 3: The percentage of answer to the question "Are electric-powered indoor/outdoor chair helpful in the aspect of refreshing your mind?"

Mentions:
In the questionnaire, questions about social participation frequency, helpfulness of EPIOC to confidence, refresh patients' emotion and self-reported degrees of independence were divided into five grades. For the question about how much social participation was increased after using EPIOC, 26 (37.1%) and 26 (37.1%) answered 'much increased' and 'increased', respectively. A total of 52 patients (74.2%) answered positive responses (Fig. 1). For the question about helpfulness of EPIOC to confidence ("How confident you were in performing activity of daily living? Did you feel handicapped when you were on the EPIOC?"), 14 (20.0%) and 21 (30.0%) answered 'very confident, not at all' and 'confident, not', respectively (Fig. 2). For the question about helpfulness of EPIOC in the aspect of refreshing mind, 24 (34.3%) and 23 (23.0%) answered 'highly helpful' and 'helpful', respectively. On the other hand, 15 (21.4%) and 8 (11.4%) answered 'fair' and 'unhelpful', respectively (Fig. 3). For self-reported independency in performing ADLs, 14 (20.0%) and 35 (50.0%) answered 'completely independent' and 'independent', respectively. Overall, a total of 70% answered positive responses. On the other hand, 15 (21.4%) and 6 (8.6%) answered 'substantially dependent' and 'dependent', respectively. No one answered 'completely dependent' (Fig. 4). For question of "If you don't use EPIOC, can you perform outdoor activities?", 62 (88.6%) answered 'I can't', whereas 8 (11.4%) answered 'I can, however, perhaps, I'll undergo much restriction'. Nobody answered 'I can be the same as now' (Fig. 5).

Figure 3: The percentage of answer to the question "Are electric-powered indoor/outdoor chair helpful in the aspect of refreshing your mind?"

Mentions:
In the questionnaire, questions about social participation frequency, helpfulness of EPIOC to confidence, refresh patients' emotion and self-reported degrees of independence were divided into five grades. For the question about how much social participation was increased after using EPIOC, 26 (37.1%) and 26 (37.1%) answered 'much increased' and 'increased', respectively. A total of 52 patients (74.2%) answered positive responses (Fig. 1). For the question about helpfulness of EPIOC to confidence ("How confident you were in performing activity of daily living? Did you feel handicapped when you were on the EPIOC?"), 14 (20.0%) and 21 (30.0%) answered 'very confident, not at all' and 'confident, not', respectively (Fig. 2). For the question about helpfulness of EPIOC in the aspect of refreshing mind, 24 (34.3%) and 23 (23.0%) answered 'highly helpful' and 'helpful', respectively. On the other hand, 15 (21.4%) and 8 (11.4%) answered 'fair' and 'unhelpful', respectively (Fig. 3). For self-reported independency in performing ADLs, 14 (20.0%) and 35 (50.0%) answered 'completely independent' and 'independent', respectively. Overall, a total of 70% answered positive responses. On the other hand, 15 (21.4%) and 6 (8.6%) answered 'substantially dependent' and 'dependent', respectively. No one answered 'completely dependent' (Fig. 4). For question of "If you don't use EPIOC, can you perform outdoor activities?", 62 (88.6%) answered 'I can't', whereas 8 (11.4%) answered 'I can, however, perhaps, I'll undergo much restriction'. Nobody answered 'I can be the same as now' (Fig. 5).

Affiliation:
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Chungju, Korea.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate changes in activity of daily living before and after provision of electric-powered indoor/outdoor chair (EPIOC), discuss problems of current activities of daily living (ADL) evaluating tools for EPIOC users, and provide preliminary data to develop ADL evaluation tool for EPIOC user.

Methods: A total of 70 users who were prescribed EPIOC and had been using for more than 1 year were recruited in this study. Before and after provision of EPIOC, MBI and FIM scores were measured and a questionnaire consisting of six categories (general socioeconomic states, currently using state, whether EPIOC was helpful for social participation and occupational chances, psychiatric influences, self-reported degrees of independency, and barriers of using EPIOC) was used.

Results: No difference in MBI scores before and after provision of EPIOC was observed. However, the wheelchair ambulation category showed a significant difference. While motor FIM was not significantly different from MBI, FIM score were significantly (p<0.05) higher than MBI. For questions regarding social participation frequency, helpfulness of EPIOC on confidence, refreshing patients' emotions and self-reported degrees of independence, all of them showed positive responses. Especially, EPIOC users' self-reported degree of independency showed favorable results. There was discrepancy in MBI or FIM measured by physicians.

Conclusion: Our study showed that there was a gap between the existing ADL evaluation tool and the ADL level that EPIOC users were actually feeling. Thus, it is necessary to develop an evaluation tool specifically for EPIOC.